NENGA Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgments of the Board of Revenue dated 21.12.2001, Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 17.06.1997 and the Sub -Divisional Officer, Baran dated 18.04.1993. The dispute is with regard to land comprising in khasra Nos. 238, 344, 2719, 2225, 2726, 2743, 2789, 2742 & 2741 measuring 4.90 hectares situated in revenue village Badwa, Tehsil Anta, District Baran. Revenue suit filed by the petitioner under Sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was dismissed by the learned court of SDO on the ground that the same was barred by the limitation having been filed twelve years after the date the respondent No. 4 declared his possession over the disputed land adverse to the petitioner. Before however, the merits of the case are adverted, the background giving rise to the said revenue suit need to be noticed first. Land in dispute was originally recorded in the name of the petitioner Nenga. It was mutated in the name of the contesting respondent on 24.03.1987 by Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner challenged the order of mutation before the Settlement Officer who vide his order dated 10.04.1989 set aside the mutation. Appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 against the said order of Settlement Officer was also dismissed by Settlement Commissioner on 04.12.1989. Respondent No. 4 yet again filed an application before the Tehsildar, Mangrole for again getting the mutation of the said land attested in his favour, claiming that he was adopted son of the petitioner. The Tehsildar rejected the application vide order dated 18.06.1991 and thereafter his appeal filed before SDO, Baran was also dismissed on 24.02.1993. Then the matter was brought before Additional Divisional Commissioner on appeal preferred by respondent No. 4. By order dated 24.08.1993, Additional Divisional Commissioner upheld the orders passed by the Tehsildar and SDO. He however observed that so far question of possession is concerned it would be open to the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondent No. 4 only by due process of law. This is how the petitioner filed the revenue suit giving rise to the present litigation on 26.05.1993. When this writ petition was pending, the sole petitioner Nenga died on 15.05.2002. Two applications filed by the contesting parties herein, for their impleadment as his legal representative. While the applicant Jai Singh filed such application on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by deceased Nenga in his favour, another application was filed by the respondent No. 4 on the basis of adoption. Both the parties contested the case of one another. In that situation, this Court by order dated 23.02.2007 directed that the applicant Jai Singh is permitted to substitute the petitioner Nenga as petitioner only for the limited purpose of continuing this petition. Although, question as who is the real heir of the petitioner Nenga was kept open. In the meantime, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the applicant Jai Singh applied for grant of probate before the Court of District Judge, Baran. The District Judge, Baran as by his order dated 31.10.2007 has granted probate in favour of the applicant Jai Singh, certified copy of which is placed on record. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, informed that the said order of learned District Judge is also subject matter of challenging appeal. It would be appropriate to observe at this stage that the issue as to who shall be entitled to inherit the properties of the original -petitioner Nenga would be governed by whatever decision is rendered by this Court in appeal said to have been filed by the respondent.

(2.) This petition in the above background is therefore, being decided only with a view to pronouncing upon the validity and correctness of the orders impugned herein.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Devendra Raghava and Mr. R.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and perused the impugned orders.